Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify time threshold vs crypto timer (#2620)

Jana Iyengar <> Tue, 16 April 2019 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FBE1120184 for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oIEIO74cvOny for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0FF61202D1 for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:08:02 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1555380482; bh=pam7ZRDoCs1vZu9KRGQKB1zUH9METtEiBqbe0iCxIvU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=BvDdrgHHW7N++G6FAo8wnWpD1EoGZLDAQGvScpaXgu34E0Lg9U/2vyiZkDwBVmokK lmOFvbDAxHIKVOGv/cDpGaV1i00ZOMTPPArpOzYrXYX0P5a1q1mHRF0p2mbsiCDx44 EsOx15SBmHO7wGrbjHMBAmcP1iwBO2/szB61BtV8=
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2620/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify time threshold vs crypto timer (#2620)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cb539028748f_230d3fcc7a8d45c41665d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:08:05 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

> @@ -537,8 +537,15 @@ and otherwise it MUST send an Initial packet in a UDP datagram of at least
 1200 bytes.
 The crypto retransmission timer is not set if the time threshold
-{{time-threshold}} loss detection timer is set.  When the crypto
-retransmission timer is active, the probe timer ({{pto}}) is not active.
+{{time-threshold}} loss detection timer is set.  The time threshold loss
+detection timer is expected to both expire earlier than the crypto
+retransmission timeout and be less likely to spuriously retransmit data.
+The Initial and Handshake packet number spaces typically have a small number
+of packets in them, so time threshold loss detection will typically declare
+packets lost before packet threshold.

I think what you want to say is that time-threshold is more likely to be used for loss detection than packet-threshold, since there just might not be enough packets. So how about just this, given that you've just talked about time-threshold: "The Initial and Handshake packet number spaces will typically carry a small number of packets, so losses are less likely to be detected using packet-threshold detection."

That said, I still am not sure that it's worth mentioning the packet-threshold here at all.  But my opinion is not strong, so your call.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: